Thank you for the response. I have been thinking about your sources a fair bit and I wanted to respond to them.
1-3. If you have looked at Peter Turchin, or the foundation of cliodynamics, I don't think it is really applicable to the 3-layer principal. The 3-layer principal applies more to groups within the unelite classes. None of the folks in the office are really "elite," despite their aspirations or pretensions.
The elite in this case tend to be a different group. I would conceptualize them as things like lawyers, though some of the higher-ups at Dunder-Mifflin might occasionally rub elbows with them. Elites in this conceptualization are good at a few things.
1. They run things, often via handshake or private deals.
2. They need to be coopted by those in group 1 in order to keep the power structure intact.
3. They WANT to run things, and have many of the same qualifications as those in group 1, but are in an outgroup.
Take Nancy Pelosi as an example. Her power is massive, and much of it does not come for formal exercise of her role as Speaker or head of the Democratic Caucus in the house. Much of it comes from exercise of her unofficial power and wealth. She can steer legislation through on a voice vote, for example, without any member of Congress having to go on the record as having voted for it. She can call upon allies in the bureaucracy and media to attack people or harass them, or to grant favorable coverage and special privileges.
Along comes AOC, a young rebel who wants something and has political legitimacy in her district, as well as a massive following. She is a populist, according to her rhetoric. She rebels and strikes against the power of group 1. Or at least she did. Now she is wearing designer dresses at elite parties, and not rebelling any longer. She is only rebelling pro forma because she confers legitimacy, but has been seduced and coopted by the speaker and her clique. She is now an elite.
Along come a different group, riding a wave of populist sentiment. They too are elites, able to represent the voice of the angry people who demand change from a corrupt government. Rightly so, as the government is indeed extremely corrupt. Far more corrupt than is good for it. BUT, a lot of those people have things to do. They are busy doing their own jobs, producing, teaching, etc. They need some people to codify their problems, put them into words, present them to the world, and solve them. These people may already be elites due to their gifts and talents, but they are able to accurately and eloquently represent and relate the words of the voiceless. These are people like Trump, Robert Barnes, Sebastian Gorka.
You can also have others who are thrust into the limelight and achieve genuine elite status. People like Jordan Peterson and possibly Joe Rogan and Tim Pool. None of them come from wealthy and super-educated backgrounds, but cometh the hour, cometh the person. Very often the elite types who went to elite institutions don't like them much, because they voice uncomfortable truths that go against some of the things the elites want and need people to believe.
4. I am not sure. I would need more data to comment on that. It is possible, but it is also possible that some of the movements you are talking about were a conscious effort to harness the power of minorities. After all, they are likely to be the most fervent, because they have the most to gain, the least to lose, and have an easier time believing things that allow revolution.
This is one of the ODDER things about Christians in the early church. They were not revolutionaries in a political sense, and instead focused on the revolution within their communities and selves. This led to some odd problems with the Romans. They were clearly guilty of atheism, which the Romans prosecuted fervently, but they were not trying to overthrow the social order save via example and building stronger communities. The Roman infiltrators were quite clear on this, which is why they generally did NOT persecute them unless the local community turned them in. They were odd types who liked to have dinner together and love and support each other. This is shown in some interesting correspondence about the Christian problem between local governors and the Emperor. Iirc even Nero embraced this policy. Until he needed a scapegoat, that is.
On CBT. I would not knock it until you have tried it. My own experience of it is extremely positive, and nothing in that article addressed the reasons why it works and is effective in dealing with anxiety and depression in particular. I would not try it with schizophrenia or some of the other psychiatric disorders with different underlying biology.
Between 2000 and 2005, anxiety and depression rates tripled at universities. They are still increasing. With these specific disorders, CBT helps greatly. One of the things it helps with is some of the characteristic mental failings of those who follow the religion of woke. Projection, Catastrophizing, Fortune-telling, and so on are all things that those who follow Critical theory are trained to do.
As far as social support, I am not sure what you are proposing, so it makes it hard to comment.
As far as falsely manufactured communities and cults, yes. There is a great deal of utility to categorizing the woke as a cult. Just remember that they are a cult with POWER! This makes it hard to call them a cult. If Insanity succeeds, does anyone dare call it insanity? Not until it finally fails, which is a lesson that the Communist Revolution in China, the USSR, Cuba, etc can show us!
Thank you for this detailed response, but I do think I need to clarify a bit about the vagueness of "the elite":
1. Danco's theory is specific that this three-layer structure does not only apply to corporate structure, but the social environment at large. But since population size does not change very much, and social mobility is often non-existent (whether by genetic different or "systematic oppression" is another debate). Would it be possible to present the separation of elites from the professional class through the lens of the self-deceiving upper and lower gentry? If so, would "Elite Overproduction" still stand up as a social MacLeod Cycle?
2. For some clarification, Church claimed that Bush and Clinton Families to be properly in the Elite, Obama and JFK to be Upper Gentry (who ideologically converges with, but not inherently part of the Elite), whilst LBJ and Reagan are "Working Rich" who proclaims to be against the Elite. This distinction is unique from the others, and I would like to see figureheads like Trump, Peterson, and podcast jockey fitting within this frame.
Conceptualizing class stratification
1. Is this cycle similar to the MacLeod life cycle of the firm? How could the Elite be bloated on top when it is the Gentry middle that becomes overproduced? https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-or-the-office-according-to-the-office/
2. If not, Is "Elite Overproduction" really Gentry self-delusion? Or is the three-layer system not applicable to the theory of Peter Turchin overall? https://danco.substack.com/p/michael-dwight-and-andy-the-three
3. Is this principle universal across stratified cultures and organizations? https://americanmanifestobook.blogspot.com/2020/04/three-layers-in-brief.html
4. Can this explain the increased proportions of minorities in critical times of any social movements? (citation of Graeber in https://philosophybear.substack.com/p/movements-are-always-a-distorted)
Conceptualizing mental health
1. It is possible that CBT can't cure this problem, and that social support should come first https://hoarse.substack.com/p/cbt-is-dumb
2. Falsely manufactured communities are no different from cults (see Circling) https://graymirror.substack.com/p/circling-and-nerd-society https://graymirror.substack.com/p/in-defense-of-circling-fashion-and
Thank you for the response. I have been thinking about your sources a fair bit and I wanted to respond to them.
1-3. If you have looked at Peter Turchin, or the foundation of cliodynamics, I don't think it is really applicable to the 3-layer principal. The 3-layer principal applies more to groups within the unelite classes. None of the folks in the office are really "elite," despite their aspirations or pretensions.
The elite in this case tend to be a different group. I would conceptualize them as things like lawyers, though some of the higher-ups at Dunder-Mifflin might occasionally rub elbows with them. Elites in this conceptualization are good at a few things.
1. They run things, often via handshake or private deals.
2. They need to be coopted by those in group 1 in order to keep the power structure intact.
3. They WANT to run things, and have many of the same qualifications as those in group 1, but are in an outgroup.
Take Nancy Pelosi as an example. Her power is massive, and much of it does not come for formal exercise of her role as Speaker or head of the Democratic Caucus in the house. Much of it comes from exercise of her unofficial power and wealth. She can steer legislation through on a voice vote, for example, without any member of Congress having to go on the record as having voted for it. She can call upon allies in the bureaucracy and media to attack people or harass them, or to grant favorable coverage and special privileges.
Along comes AOC, a young rebel who wants something and has political legitimacy in her district, as well as a massive following. She is a populist, according to her rhetoric. She rebels and strikes against the power of group 1. Or at least she did. Now she is wearing designer dresses at elite parties, and not rebelling any longer. She is only rebelling pro forma because she confers legitimacy, but has been seduced and coopted by the speaker and her clique. She is now an elite.
Along come a different group, riding a wave of populist sentiment. They too are elites, able to represent the voice of the angry people who demand change from a corrupt government. Rightly so, as the government is indeed extremely corrupt. Far more corrupt than is good for it. BUT, a lot of those people have things to do. They are busy doing their own jobs, producing, teaching, etc. They need some people to codify their problems, put them into words, present them to the world, and solve them. These people may already be elites due to their gifts and talents, but they are able to accurately and eloquently represent and relate the words of the voiceless. These are people like Trump, Robert Barnes, Sebastian Gorka.
You can also have others who are thrust into the limelight and achieve genuine elite status. People like Jordan Peterson and possibly Joe Rogan and Tim Pool. None of them come from wealthy and super-educated backgrounds, but cometh the hour, cometh the person. Very often the elite types who went to elite institutions don't like them much, because they voice uncomfortable truths that go against some of the things the elites want and need people to believe.
4. I am not sure. I would need more data to comment on that. It is possible, but it is also possible that some of the movements you are talking about were a conscious effort to harness the power of minorities. After all, they are likely to be the most fervent, because they have the most to gain, the least to lose, and have an easier time believing things that allow revolution.
This is one of the ODDER things about Christians in the early church. They were not revolutionaries in a political sense, and instead focused on the revolution within their communities and selves. This led to some odd problems with the Romans. They were clearly guilty of atheism, which the Romans prosecuted fervently, but they were not trying to overthrow the social order save via example and building stronger communities. The Roman infiltrators were quite clear on this, which is why they generally did NOT persecute them unless the local community turned them in. They were odd types who liked to have dinner together and love and support each other. This is shown in some interesting correspondence about the Christian problem between local governors and the Emperor. Iirc even Nero embraced this policy. Until he needed a scapegoat, that is.
On CBT. I would not knock it until you have tried it. My own experience of it is extremely positive, and nothing in that article addressed the reasons why it works and is effective in dealing with anxiety and depression in particular. I would not try it with schizophrenia or some of the other psychiatric disorders with different underlying biology.
Between 2000 and 2005, anxiety and depression rates tripled at universities. They are still increasing. With these specific disorders, CBT helps greatly. One of the things it helps with is some of the characteristic mental failings of those who follow the religion of woke. Projection, Catastrophizing, Fortune-telling, and so on are all things that those who follow Critical theory are trained to do.
As far as social support, I am not sure what you are proposing, so it makes it hard to comment.
As far as falsely manufactured communities and cults, yes. There is a great deal of utility to categorizing the woke as a cult. Just remember that they are a cult with POWER! This makes it hard to call them a cult. If Insanity succeeds, does anyone dare call it insanity? Not until it finally fails, which is a lesson that the Communist Revolution in China, the USSR, Cuba, etc can show us!
Thank you for this detailed response, but I do think I need to clarify a bit about the vagueness of "the elite":
1. Danco's theory is specific that this three-layer structure does not only apply to corporate structure, but the social environment at large. But since population size does not change very much, and social mobility is often non-existent (whether by genetic different or "systematic oppression" is another debate). Would it be possible to present the separation of elites from the professional class through the lens of the self-deceiving upper and lower gentry? If so, would "Elite Overproduction" still stand up as a social MacLeod Cycle?
Danco https://alexdanco.com/2021/01/22/the-michael-scott-theory-of-social-class/
The OG Theory: https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2013/4/8/1200263/-Examining-social-class-in-the-US-Church-s-3-ladder-system
2. For some clarification, Church claimed that Bush and Clinton Families to be properly in the Elite, Obama and JFK to be Upper Gentry (who ideologically converges with, but not inherently part of the Elite), whilst LBJ and Reagan are "Working Rich" who proclaims to be against the Elite. This distinction is unique from the others, and I would like to see figureheads like Trump, Peterson, and podcast jockey fitting within this frame.
https://indiepf.com/michael-o-churchs-theory-of-3-class-ladders-in-america-archive/